Currently, a conversation about voting machines with the government / a politician is likely to go something like this: You: "I support electronic voting machi

Currently, a conversation about voting machines with the government / a politician is likely to go something like this: You: "I support electronic voting machines that uses <some foolproof blockchain system>." Politician: "You will be happy to hear that I too support electronic voting and you will be happy to hear we will be buying some electronic voting machines that run proprietary software on Windows XP with Norton Anti-Virus! Thanks for your support!" You: "That's not what I..." Politician: "Thanks again!" <Ends discussion.> I'm not confidence our current education level and political environment can navigate the subtle distinction between "verifiable blockchain system" and "proprietary software on Windows XP". Or maybe they do use a fool proof system for several years. Everyone gets accustomed to trusting the trustworthy algorithm. Then they change things, they say "here's a new proprietary algorithm, it will save taxes and protect children". 99% of the population doesn't understand what's different, so they continue to support the new proprietary algorithm, because "the voting machines still look the same". The few who know better are ignored.